PDA

View Full Version : Djokovic: Tour is too long


Adi-das
10-14-2009, 08:04 AM
"We have to make a compromise. The ATP is an association of tournaments and players together. The bottom line is that you don't want to have injured players. The schedule, in my opinion, is too long, but we have to go step by step and try to solve it."


http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12110_5626743,00.html

This comes after Roddick and Nadal also questioned the organisers. I guess we just have to give in and say that players are not robots.

edmondsm
10-14-2009, 08:14 AM
If this is really the consensus among players then they should put their money where their mouth is and boycott. They do it in other sports when the players aren't happy.

Adi-das
10-14-2009, 08:20 AM
Boycott, really? That would really be bad for tennis then...

JRW
10-14-2009, 08:22 AM
Boycott, really? That would really be bad for tennis then...

Might be bad for tennis for the remainder of the season but good for tennis long-term.

aleexxxxx
10-14-2009, 08:30 AM
Guys back in the 80s played way more than current generation of players and never complained.

Lendl especially

statto
10-14-2009, 08:30 AM
So what do we have so far:

#1: Out of the event due to fatigue.
#2: Says the season is too long.
#3: Says the season is too long.
#4: Out of the event due to injury.
#5: Retires due to injury.
#6: Retires due to injury and says the season is too long.

When all the top players are saying the same things it's time to do something.

mandy01
10-14-2009, 08:34 AM
I like Djoko's take on this actually.He sounds a lot more reasonable.I liked his approach.
The question now is-Can they devise a schedule that pleases all the players and meets all the interests reasonably well?Because they cant only think of the top players.

vandre
10-14-2009, 08:40 AM
Boycott, really? That would really be bad for tennis then...

yes, it would be bad in the short term, but if and when things got worked out, then the players would have a shorter schedule.

the question i have is "where do you cut?" the spot that i think of is right after the uso. if that happens, then japan and the asian tourneys are gonna have to be moved before ao or they aren't gonna happen, which it wouldn't be nice for the fans if they didn't happen. and if you move these tourneys, then you're gonna have to start the season earlier (please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there only one warmup for the ao?). if you did that, then you are still shortening the offseason, although it might be better than it currently is. slight improvement is still improvement.

no matter what happens things will never be perfect and someone will always be complaining. if the year ends start a week or so after the uso, then any top player who either gets injured at the uso or goes out early and drops out of the field will complain about not having time to recover or regain points, whatever the case is.

how will the atp/ itf decide which events are moved and which are cut? who do they say no to? are they willing to deal with the consequences of their actions?

while they are addressing the schedule, why don't the straighten out the season in terms of surface (hard, clay, grass, hard instead of hard, clay, hard, clay, grass, clay, hard) and shorten the uso series.

T Woody
10-14-2009, 08:56 AM
They could solve it pretty easily by just slotting all these end of season hard court masters in to the early HC season that follows the Aussie. This would give you the following:

Jan
Australian

Feb/Mar
Shanghai (hard)
Paris (hard)
Indian Wells (hard)
Miami (hard)

April/May
Monte Carlo (clay)
Rome (clay)
Madrid (clay)
Roland Garros

June
Wimbledon

July/August
Montreal (hard)
Cincy (hard)
USO

Sept
World Tour London Final


That's 15 tournaments in 9 months, 11 of which are best of three's. More than three full months off. What's wrong with that?

P.S. There should be a Masters 1000 on grass

mandy01
10-14-2009, 08:58 AM
The OP just put in one quote..this is the whole thing.Good stuff from Novak

World number four Novak Djokovic accepts a compromise needs to be reached to reduce the "too long" ATP schedule but admits chopping a month or two off the calendar is not the solution.
Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick have both taken swipes at the 11-month annual programme this week, claiming it causes injuries and shortens careers.

"The top players will meet in London and then again at the Australian Open in January," the 22-year-old Serbian told The Independent. "We will work on doing something that is comfortable to both the players and the tournaments in the future."


He added: "The tournaments still understand their job and their obligations better than we understand their job - and vice-versa. But the players now are more united than ever.

"The current leadership of the ATP is willing to do a lot of things for the players. We have already talked about it at the US Open and we have to dedicate the whole half-a-day meeting to this, because it's a very sensitive task.

"It affects both players and tournaments. We can't expect just to shorten the season by a month or two, because that would hurt certain tournaments.

"We have to make a compromise. The ATP is an association of tournaments and players together. The bottom line is that you don't want to have injured players. The schedule, in my opinion, is too long, but we have to go step by step and try to solve it."

Roddick, who was yesterday forced out of the Shanghai Masters with a left knee injury, labelled the Tour requirements "ridiculous" and "short-sighted", while Nadal claimed it was "impossible" to play from the start of January through to December 5.

drakulie
10-14-2009, 08:59 AM
LOL.

how cute>>>> joker trying to imitate, Nadal.

Adi-das
10-14-2009, 09:00 AM
LOL.

how cute>>>> joker trying to imitate, Nadal.

Stop trolling.

Djokovic is right, the tour is too long.

Cesc Fabregas
10-14-2009, 09:01 AM
I like Djoko's take on this actually.He sounds a lot more reasonable.I liked his approach.
The question now is-Can they devise a schedule that pleases all the players and meets all the interests reasonably well?Because they cant only think of the top players.

LOL. Stop with the hypocrisy, if Rafael said then same as Novak did you would criticise him. Please try and not be biased.

mandy01
10-14-2009, 09:03 AM
LOL. Stop with the hypocrisy, if Rafael said then same as Novak did you would criticise him. Please try and not be biased.
Rafael said this without ever caring to manage his own schedule well.Rafael also said this by playing doubles,playing minor events when he can afford to skip them.
Neither Djokovic nor Roddick have complained as much as Rafael does. :wink:
And calling others biased when you yourself are that is called hypocrisy.

Cyan
10-14-2009, 09:07 AM
LOL. Stop with the hypocrisy, if Rafael said then same as Novak did you would criticise him. Please try and not be biased.

Rafa made Fed cry, hence she bashes the Spaniard.

drakulie
10-14-2009, 09:09 AM
Djokovic is right, the tour is too long.

I agree. They should only play 16 matches all year, and then have a SuperTennisBowl.

mandy01
10-14-2009, 09:10 AM
Rafa made Fed cry, hence she bashes the Spaniard.
not really..I just dont know how much constant complains to the media are going to work if they really want a change.
Besides,Fed got what he wanted so I couldnt care less about the AO.
And to be honest I dont have much sympathy for players who dont know when to stop playing then come and complain.

Adi-das
10-14-2009, 09:13 AM
I agree. They should only play 16 matches all year, and then have a SuperTennisBowl.

You got me good there!

mandy01
10-14-2009, 09:15 AM
And let me say this..I dont agree with everything Novak said.I still think the players are in-charge of their own schedule and lets be honest they get pampered a lot.
.

TensProfes
10-14-2009, 09:17 AM
So what do we have so far:

#1: Out of the event due to fatigue.
#2: Says the season is too long.
#3: Says the season is too long.
#4: Out of the event due to injury.
#5: Retires due to injury.
#6: Retires due to injury and says the season is too long.

When all the top players are saying the same things it's time to do something.

This makes sense on paper, but it's a much more complicated issue than that. Start with the fact that there are over 1,500 players on the ATP computer. There are between 15 and 40 that want the calendar shortened. The other 1,460+ guys (and the fans and the tournament owners) don't. Add to that the fact that a number of the 15-40 have shortened their calendars even further voluntarily by playing an optional exhibition tourney a week before they have to start playing again, and you realize that what they say they want and what they actually want isn't the same thing.

In a nutshell, shortening the calendar won't solve the very real injury/fatigue issues. Good luck finding a solution that will, but surface and ball changes are more relevant than scheduling in reality.

mandy01
10-14-2009, 09:19 AM
^^ good post.

drakulie
10-14-2009, 09:20 AM
Rafa made Fed cry, hence she bashes the Spaniard.

Federer cooked onions that day, which explains the tears in his eyes. Stop making stuff up.

Adi-das
10-14-2009, 09:20 AM
Traveling should also come into the mix. I mean, pro's from Europe traveling to Asia twice in a year? It's not very logical.

babbette
10-14-2009, 09:20 AM
It's time to stop complaining an give suggestions on what to do, playas.

mandy01
10-14-2009, 09:22 AM
Traveling should also come into the mix. I mean, pro's from Europe traveling to Asia twice in a year? It's not very logical.

The thing is the entire calender is based around four main events...The Grand Slams..To go from continent to continent at a time will mean that the Slams will have to scheduled differently..Tough ask.

drakulie
10-14-2009, 09:23 AM
Perhaps a good compromise is to have one slam a year.

So......., one year the AO will be played at the end of the year.

The folowing year, it will be the French, the next, Wimbledon, and the 4th year, USO.

Adi-das
10-14-2009, 09:24 AM
Perhaps a good compromise is to have one slam a year.

So......., one year the AO will be played at the end of the year.

The folowing year, it will be the French, the next, Wimbledon, and the 4th year, USO.

.................................................. ...................

TheMusicLover
10-14-2009, 09:26 AM
This makes sense on paper, but it's a much more complicated issue than that. Start with the fact that there are over 1,500 players on the ATP computer. There are between 15 and 40 that want the calendar shortened. The other 1,460+ guys (and the fans and the tournament owners) don't. Add to that the fact that a number of the 15-40 have shortened their calendars even further voluntarily by playing an optional exhibition tourney a week before they have to start playing again, and you realize that what they say they want and what they actually want isn't the same thing.

In a nutshell, shortening the calendar won't solve the very real injury/fatigue issues. Good luck finding a solution that will, but surface and ball changes are more relevant than scheduling in reality.

Finally someone who manages to see the WHOLE picture. The interests of the top players are 180 degrees opposite of the some 1460+ guys BELOW them, who just need a long calendar to be able to even make a decent living. Now who's going to stand up for all these hard-working journeymen? :roll:

That's why I'm beginning to get a bit sick of all the whining from these millionaires who make 10-, 100-fold more $$$$ than the fellows below them, get all their requests and whimps acknowledged by tournament directors, recieve millions of under-the-table cash by collecting unknown amounts of appearance fees, etc.

Cry babies.

Matt H.
10-14-2009, 12:18 PM
Here is my (somewhat radical) proposal:

Shorten the season to 10 months. Give the players a full 2 months off.

Play the French a week earlier and Wimbledon a week later, creating a 2 week “mid season intermission” with no tournaments between the French and the first grass warm-up. Finish the season by end of October. If it’s too crammed, have regular reason done by 10/31 and play the year end championships on 11/1-11/7.

Here’s the radical part:

Help secure the lower ranked players. Make it top 300, 400, or even 500. Create a pool from all the tournament prize money pots by taking 5% from the semifinalists and better and give these guys a guaranteed $50,000 annual salary to add to their tournament winnings. This will help with travel and training expenses so they don’t have to play every single tournament possible.

Now, some people will say that takes away from the guys being “hungry” and “scratching and clawing their way to get better.” I disagree because if the cut off for the guaranteed salary is 400, the fight amongst the 401-450 ranked players is going to be ridiculous.

Or, you could go a different route and do something like if you qualify for 5 main ATP/Slam tournament draws you get the extra money.

Reason being is that every other pro sports league has a league minimum salary. NFL is $750k I believe. Roster size is 54 players with 32 teams, so that’s 1728 players getting a minimum of $750k. Surely the ATP has the bankroll to guarantee a few hundred players making a modest $100k (modest amongst professional athletics).

For reference, Alex Kuznetsov is ranked 199 and has made $38,468 so far this year.

The futures and challengers also need prize money updates. Inflation has grown quite a bit over the last 10-15 years and they’re still playing for the same prize pot.

bolo
10-14-2009, 12:51 PM
Finally someone who manages to see the WHOLE picture. The interests of the top players are 180 degrees opposite of the some 1460+ guys BELOW them, who just need a long calendar to be able to even make a decent living. Now who's going to stand up for all these hard-working journeymen? :roll:

That's why I'm beginning to get a bit sick of all the whining from these millionaires who make 10-, 100-fold more $$$$ than the fellows below them, get all their requests and whimps acknowledged by tournament directors, recieve millions of under-the-table cash by collecting unknown amounts of appearance fees, etc.

Cry babies.

That's a good point. But you have to realize that they are surviving partly at the expense of the longevity of the top players. As nadal said he has been able to navigate the tour while being top 1 or 2 in terms of matches played for the last 5(?) seasons, but he knows he can't keep up that pace once he starts getting a little older. The wear and tear is going to build up and the chances of a more serious injury keep increasing.

They have to balance the wear and tear on the top guys (especially now with a lot of the surfaces being slower) while also making it a good place for the lower ranked guys to survive. Believe me no one is interested in seeing robredo or seppi play by themselves on the tour but seppi/robredo get to keep playing because the next nadal/murray/jmdp will show up to pick up the slack once the tour burns out this version of nadal/murray/jmdp.

It would be interesting to know who on average has a longer career, someone who has reached no. 1 or someone who has reached 20. The 20th guy is less talented and so might not survive because of competition but at the same time he well might have less injuries because he just doesn't end up playing as much as the best guys.

statto
10-14-2009, 01:16 PM
This makes sense on paper, but it's a much more complicated issue than that. Start with the fact that there are over 1,500 players on the ATP computer. There are between 15 and 40 that want the calendar shortened. The other 1,460+ guys (and the fans and the tournament owners) don't. Add to that the fact that a number of the 15-40 have shortened their calendars even further voluntarily by playing an optional exhibition tourney a week before they have to start playing again, and you realize that what they say they want and what they actually want isn't the same thing.

In a nutshell, shortening the calendar won't solve the very real injury/fatigue issues. Good luck finding a solution that will, but surface and ball changes are more relevant than scheduling in reality.

Of course the low ranked players don't want less tournaments - they play one or two matches before going out. The better players are playing 4-5 times a week when they're in a tournament. Why else do we see people like Fed and Nadal playing 65 matches in 17 tournaments, meanwhile you have people like Simon (#10) playing 60 matches in 27 tournaments! Drop down to Seppi (#50) and you have a guy who's played 30 tournaments but less than 50 matches!

Yes, the lower you go in the rankings the less desire there will be for a more moderate season, but the one's who want it are the people who bring the money into the sport. The question is what to do.

I have no problem with making the slams mandatory, but none of the other tournaments should be. Let me repeat... [b]only the slams should be mandatory events[b].

Tell the players that the slams have to comprise four of their tournament scores for ranking purposes, then they can add their next best 12 results. That would mean they can play as little as 16 tournaments in a year without compromising their ranking. If a player has a couple of horrendous tournaments then they have the option of playing more if they want, but it would be their choice.

The argument against this is that you dilute the quality of the field at tournaments. I don't agree. The masters pay higher prize money and give more ranking points. Of course the best players will schedule as many of these as they can. Even if for some reason a large number of the top eight miss one of these tournaments, so what? Doesn't that just give some fresh players an opportunity to score some serious points, and give still others the opportunity to play in a tournament they wouldn't have ordinarily.

By doing it that way they don't make the season shorter, but they give anyone who wants it the opportunity for a 2-3 month break (either between AO and RG, or W and USO, or USO and the Masters Cup).

statto
10-14-2009, 01:18 PM
Is there a reason a can't edit my messages BTW?

settolove
10-14-2009, 01:23 PM
^^
You don't have enough posts. When you hit a certain number you will be able to edit your posts.

bolo
10-14-2009, 01:52 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing a strike btw. If it had to happen right around the U.S. open would be nice.

TensProfes
10-14-2009, 07:08 PM
The irony no one has pointed out yet in this thread is that Djokovic said this despite having played the most matches of any player on tour this year (79), most of them at non-required events. Some of them were even at events that couldn't help his ranking as optionals! Yet he still played close to 20% more matches than the next busiest guy VOLUNTARILY. Doesn't sound like a guy who is trying to play less and save wear and tear on his body...

ksbh
10-14-2009, 07:29 PM
The current top 6 is the biggest bunch of whiners, if I ever saw one!

They don' thave a problem playing meaningless exhibitions against retired former greats, playing on running trains, glass surfaces and mixed surfaces as well (like that joke of a match that the current top 2 played last year or the year before!) and then bi*tch about the schedule.

Antonio Puente
10-14-2009, 07:42 PM
I have a difficult time caring about these fall tournaments anyway(especially when you're seeing only 3-4 people in the crowd). It's anticlimactic. It doesn't feel like it's leading to anything. The only way this works is if they can somehow promote the year-end tournament to make it feel as important as a slam. Keeping it in one location(London) would be a good start.

TheFifthSet
10-14-2009, 08:01 PM
Federer cooked onions that day, which explains the tears in his eyes. Stop making stuff up.

Dude, where do you get this stuff? You kill me!

http://ak.imgag.com/imgag/product/180278/3062234d.gif

Baikalic
10-14-2009, 08:38 PM
Finally someone who manages to see the WHOLE picture. The interests of the top players are 180 degrees opposite of the some 1460+ guys BELOW them, who just need a long calendar to be able to even make a decent living. Now who's going to stand up for all these hard-working journeymen? :roll:

That's why I'm beginning to get a bit sick of all the whining from these millionaires who make 10-, 100-fold more $$$$ than the fellows below them, get all their requests and whimps acknowledged by tournament directors, recieve millions of under-the-table cash by collecting unknown amounts of appearance fees, etc.

Cry babies.

Welcome to most professional sports. A shame I must say.

Mick
10-14-2009, 08:48 PM
well the guys at the bottom usually would lose in the first or second round so the long schedule doesn't affect them much. the guys at the top usually would go deep in the draw and the long schedule affects them much more.

valiantgame2009
10-14-2009, 11:49 PM
I agree with the above, only the Grand Slams should me mandatory events. And just like you are saying, they have great amounts of prize money and therefor the top players will play them anyway + the fact that they greatly improve your ranking if go far or even win one of them.

Azzurri
10-24-2009, 07:47 AM
I agree with the above, only the Grand Slams should me mandatory events. And just like you are saying, they have great amounts of prize money and therefor the top players will play them anyway + the fact that they greatly improve your ranking if go far or even win one of them.

LOL...you are a little off base here. you think top players play the Grand Slams for the money??? you don't know much about professional tennis players.

Talker
10-24-2009, 08:40 AM
The season isn't too long IMO.
It's the players who push themselves off the court to get better.
They are finding out that in order to compete at the top it takes a lot more of just tennis practice. Endurance training, weights and diet to name a few areas they have to look at.

Then they have to schedule all of this, that is the problem for most of them, they just play and train till they have nothing left.

All of this extra work helps them but most at the top have over training problems from not scheduling tournaments and training properly.

No one wants to cut back on thier training, it seems the players at the top don't want to lose the advantage it provides.

The players who have less natural ability have to train even harder to be competitive.

You can look at how much players have played in the past, for many it was not much of a problem because the off court practice/training wasn't as intense.

my .02

P_Agony
10-24-2009, 08:57 AM
LOL. Stop with the hypocrisy, if Rafael said then same as Novak did you would criticise him. Please try and not be biased.

I agree with the players' claims, however, mandy has a point in something, if Rafa thinks the season is too long, too tough, why does he keep playing doubles and little tourneys that don't mean anything. Rafa has been the #1/#2 player this year (I won't count the few weeks when he was #3), so surely he can just do what Federer does and just player Masters events and slams, without any doubles (aside of maybe DC events), without small tournyes. Yeah yeah, I get that Barcelona is an important event for Nadal, but is it really more important than Rome, MC, Madrid? I really doubt it. Less tournyes to play mean less fatigue and higher quality of play.

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 11:49 AM
Rafael said this without ever caring to manage his own schedule well.Rafael also said this by playing doubles,playing minor events when he can afford to skip them.
Neither Djokovic nor Roddick have complained as much as Rafael does. :wink:
And calling others biased when you yourself are that is called hypocrisy.

You need to think out your arguments better LOL, what a hypocrite. We begin to see that your opinion is worth nothing.

All the top players agree with Nadal and that includes Roger, get real!

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 11:56 AM
I agree with the players' claims, however, mandy has a point in something, if Rafa thinks the season is too long, too tough, why does he keep playing doubles and little tourneys that don't mean anything. Rafa has been the #1/#2 player this year (I won't count the few weeks when he was #3), so surely he can just do what Federer does and just player Masters events and slams, without any doubles (aside of maybe DC events), without small tournyes. Yeah yeah, I get that Barcelona is an important event for Nadal, but is it really more important than Rome, MC, Madrid? I really doubt it. Less tournyes to play mean less fatigue and higher quality of play.

No you and Mandy have no substance to your counter argument. Nadal said the season was too long, and all the top players agree.

You are arguing that Nadal does not know how to properly manage his schedule (which Nadal agrees on).


Those are two different arguments that having nothing to do with one another

Nadal can miss-manage his schedule whether it be too long or too short and has no basis in the original argument.

If what Roger is doing is working so well, why does he think the season is too long and why is he out due to fatigue?

Oh wait , because the season is too long....

You ****s need to think before you speak

P_Agony
10-24-2009, 02:17 PM
No you and Mandy have no substance to your counter argument. Nadal said the season was too long, and all the top players agree.

You are arguing that Nadal does not know how to properly manage his schedule (which Nadal agrees on).


Those are two different arguments that having nothing to do with one another

Nadal can miss-manage his schedule whether it be too long or too short and has no basis in the original argument.

If what Roger is doing is working so well, why does he think the season is too long and why is he out due to fatigue?

Oh wait , because the season is too long....

You ****s need to think before you speak

What part of "I agree with the players' claims" did you not understand?

You ***** need to READ before you comment.

TheTruth
10-25-2009, 09:27 PM
The season is too long.

The injuries and withdrawals prove it.

If you're a top guy you play more.

The mandatories are also a factor.

11/12 months is too much. Period. Especially for a one-on-one sport where an individual has to sacrifice their bodies in combat.

They all complain. They're the ones on tour. They should know more about it than we do.